|
|
|
|
|
|
by jerrya
3887 days ago
|
|
|
Because it's not authentic, it's "acting authentic". There's a 1987 movie called Broadcast News which touches on the issues of how reporters portray the news and what can happen, and why it might be considered unethical to add touches and flourishes that add authenticity to inauthentic events. NPR Voice is attractive, I enjoy listening to it, but what else can they sell me while they use that voice? If NPR Voice is not spontaneous but heavily practiced, rehearsed and edited, how is it different from propaganda? |
|
|
Granted that an "authentic-sounding voice of authority" can put credence behind inauthentic events, but can not the opposite also be true? By this token, I'm going to have a hard time believing something authentic when I hear it on a typical AM radio broadcast. Doesn't there need to be an amount of consideration of the listener in either situation despite or because of the type of voice being used? "Surely Ira Glass can't be telling me the moon is actually purple right now." "This babbling talking head is really telling me JFK just got shot? Is he serious?"
I appreciate the tip on "Broadcast News"; by coincidence, I'm going to be catching "Truth" at the theater later today, a film about the CBS//Rather fiasco based off the book.